Wouldn't agree with that 100%. For a simple conveyancing matter, price should be the main driver. It's a simple process for any small town solicitor.
If it's anything complex, then you need to look at personal recommendations.
I recently gave a fee quote for a 'simple' purchase of a quite cheap one-off house on its own site of circa half an acre and I am indeed a small town solicitor. The following transpired so far, and we do not yet have contracts signed:
1. House was built maybe 20 years ago. Septic tank was built outside the site on a neighbours land. Easement to facilitate use of septic tank has just been signed. I am relying on 3rd party solicitors to get it registered. ( but it's ok, I know them and it will be sorted out)
2. The house next door used to use a well on the site we are buying. Our site used to use the same well, but drilled a new one. Vendor got neighbours to agree to connect to the Group Water. In an inspired move, the Group Scheme contractor put the meter box\connection for the supply on the property we are buying. Group Scheme don't seem to realise that they need an easement to keep their equipment there; so the vendor's solicitor is in dialogue with a separate set of 3rd party solicitors to resolve this.
3. the site as originally transferred was incorrect and a further piece was added to the folio a couple of years ago to rectify matters. But it still doesn't look right - so I have asked client to get their engineer to take a further look on the ground and make absolutely certain that the title as mapped is the same as the title on the ground.
4. House is in poor enough shape, ( hence low price). Engineer's report has a list of remedial works required ( though, to be fair, it does not suggest that the property is one which should not be bought). Clients want to go ahead and at the end of the day it is their decision. The easy thing for me to do is to write a letter to client to say that I would not recommend they go ahead on foot of a negative engineer's report. The better thing to do is to go through the report and make sure that they understand what they are taking on; also I have to document clearly that I have done this. Because when things go wrong, people say 'how could your solicitor have let you buy this?' without any regard for the fact that a good solicitor never tells you what to do, but rather tries to ensure that you are making an informed decision.
Although the transaction now involves four sets of solicitors, I have told clients that I am going to stick to my original fee quote. I know many solicitors who would do the same. This is not foolish generosity - it is intrinsic to my business model. This is only partially because my clients are are nice people and none of this is their fault. It is mostly because it is important to them to have a good handle on costs from the outset. So on this transaction, I lose money. On other transactions I will make money. If I dropped my standard house-purchase fee to match the lowest price(s) out there, I couldn't do this. Many people will no doubt say that I should only charge for the work done - that I should charge a very low fee on a very straightforward transaction and a commensurately higher fee on the complex ones. My experience is that clients prefer to know where they stand. My policy is - if at all possible - to give them that certainty.
I support the free market. But we have to recognise that there is an inequality of bargaining knowledge between solicitor and client. If the legal services market becomes one where most people want the cheapest possible fee on the apparently common 'straightforward' conveyances, but personal recommendations (and top notch service) on anything complex, the consumer cannot ultimately be the winner. The legal market works best where people retain a solicitor based on personal recommendation and where both parties are invested in the solicitor-client relationship.
